1. Title, director and release year? Heat Frontline
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film shows the effects of energy-intensive cultures around the world on the environment and gives a brief history of methods of harnessing energy.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses the disappearance of glaciers, which an estimated 80% will be gone in the Tibet region by 2035. Nearly half of the world’s people depend on these Himalayan glaciers. Deserts are continually expanding based on the frequent droughts. Energy intensive processes, such as production of concrete, have accounted for the third largest production of green house gases.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
China is growing at a such a fast rate and in a way that makes change seem impossible. They are currently building two new coal plants a week, even though it has been proven coal is far more harmful to the atmosphere than natural gas plants. Chinese comments on the subject are that they will simply do their best and will do what they can. This is not uncommon considering world leaders like the United States have set precedent by declining to partake in Kyoto protocol. India is right on China’s footprint with the potential for growth and if every Indian were to live like Americans our earth would collapse. 52% of electricity in America is produced from coal. America’s cars and trucks emit more emissions than Europe, China, and India combined. Our dependence on foreign oil has caused violent altercations and will continue to increase in severity as our dependence grows. Until we can harvest energy given in nature, there is no hope for a sustainable environment.
5. What parts where you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced that we need to burn more coal to meet that exceeding demand. This mindset is cancerous with false assumptions that coal is a clean solution. We need to encourage natural forms of energy that, combined together, can make a significant impact. For instance, solar panels are now being introduced into building materials for houses and if every home can sustain itself a huge part of consumption will be taken away. I almost wanted to vomit when I heard the description of a cleaner coal system where they essentially pump the carbon into the ground, especially the additional list of chemicals that would be pumped into the ground also. No tests have been taken to see if this is safe option. This proves another basic issue of the “westernized” way of living- out of sight, out of mind. It does not take a genius to predict that issues such as leeching and leaks can prove harmful to the environment. The fact that politicians and corporations will not accept that they are the problem for lack of action is completely unacceptable and they need to be held responsible.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The films make me want to seek out the amount of barriers to introduce a new clean technology setup from huge energy corporations such as AEP.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is addressed to an older audience because there are a lot of political references and concepts that would be difficult to grasp for a younger audience. The film gives a great overview of the history behind the problem with global warming.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
In the case of California, the state was able to influence the auto industry by lobbying all emission standards. However for first time their request was denied during the Bush administration. If all of the states initially adopted the California standard, this would have decreased our emissions by over 40% current day.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film should focus more on the effects of melting glaciers on the environment and the physical consequences on the environment based on high energy consumption. It would give a better perspective on the effects of our actions rather than simply saying this is bad for the environment. If you were to show major cities around the world flooded and the amount of historical landmarks that can be lost based on the sea levels rising, one would be able to better capture an audience more effectively.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film shows the effects of energy-intensive cultures around the world on the environment and gives a brief history of methods of harnessing energy.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses the disappearance of glaciers, which an estimated 80% will be gone in the Tibet region by 2035. Nearly half of the world’s people depend on these Himalayan glaciers. Deserts are continually expanding based on the frequent droughts. Energy intensive processes, such as production of concrete, have accounted for the third largest production of green house gases.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
China is growing at a such a fast rate and in a way that makes change seem impossible. They are currently building two new coal plants a week, even though it has been proven coal is far more harmful to the atmosphere than natural gas plants. Chinese comments on the subject are that they will simply do their best and will do what they can. This is not uncommon considering world leaders like the United States have set precedent by declining to partake in Kyoto protocol. India is right on China’s footprint with the potential for growth and if every Indian were to live like Americans our earth would collapse. 52% of electricity in America is produced from coal. America’s cars and trucks emit more emissions than Europe, China, and India combined. Our dependence on foreign oil has caused violent altercations and will continue to increase in severity as our dependence grows. Until we can harvest energy given in nature, there is no hope for a sustainable environment.
5. What parts where you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced that we need to burn more coal to meet that exceeding demand. This mindset is cancerous with false assumptions that coal is a clean solution. We need to encourage natural forms of energy that, combined together, can make a significant impact. For instance, solar panels are now being introduced into building materials for houses and if every home can sustain itself a huge part of consumption will be taken away. I almost wanted to vomit when I heard the description of a cleaner coal system where they essentially pump the carbon into the ground, especially the additional list of chemicals that would be pumped into the ground also. No tests have been taken to see if this is safe option. This proves another basic issue of the “westernized” way of living- out of sight, out of mind. It does not take a genius to predict that issues such as leeching and leaks can prove harmful to the environment. The fact that politicians and corporations will not accept that they are the problem for lack of action is completely unacceptable and they need to be held responsible.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The films make me want to seek out the amount of barriers to introduce a new clean technology setup from huge energy corporations such as AEP.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is addressed to an older audience because there are a lot of political references and concepts that would be difficult to grasp for a younger audience. The film gives a great overview of the history behind the problem with global warming.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
In the case of California, the state was able to influence the auto industry by lobbying all emission standards. However for first time their request was denied during the Bush administration. If all of the states initially adopted the California standard, this would have decreased our emissions by over 40% current day.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film should focus more on the effects of melting glaciers on the environment and the physical consequences on the environment based on high energy consumption. It would give a better perspective on the effects of our actions rather than simply saying this is bad for the environment. If you were to show major cities around the world flooded and the amount of historical landmarks that can be lost based on the sea levels rising, one would be able to better capture an audience more effectively.